This subject is admittedly hard to write on, as timing of income turns depends on so many things (tap cards, tech cards and tech card prerequisites, civ matchup, track positioning, etc).
At the most basic level, when deciding whether or not to take an income turn I am asking myself this question: “If I do not take income and my opponent does take income on their next turn, is the net resource gain difference between me and my opponent better or worse?”. I recognize that this principle is hard to explain and understand in words, so perhaps an example will illustrate the principle more clearly.
Example Situation:
- Opponent and I are both in Era 2. Going first from Era 2 to Era 3 is a net resource swing of 4 resources (because one player gets 2 res, and the other player loses out on getting 2 res).
- It is my turn.
- I have enough res left to make two more resource-generating moves in Era 2. This means moves that expose a resource on my income mat, unlock a tech card upgrade or gain a tech card that gives me a resource-generating upgrade I would otherwise not have, etc.
- My opponent has enough res left to make one more resource-generating move in Era 2.
How do I evaluate whether taking income now or deferring and assuming my opponent will take income is the best option? I consider each factor, and if it results in more res for me or less res for my opponent, then I assign that factor a “+” value. Similarly, if a factor results in a loss of res for me or a gain of res for my opponent, then I assign that factor a “-“ value.
Here is how that works in the above scenario, assuming I decide to take an income turn. I gain two res for first to era (+2), deny my opponent the two res for first to era (+2), lose out on two income-generating moves I could have otherwise taken in Era 2 (-2), and allow my opponent to take that one more income-generating move they have left in Era 2 (-1). The sum of all these factors is 2+2-2-1 = +1 for me. This means that the net resource-generating difference between me and my opponent is +1 for me if I take income, and therefore I would strongly consider taking income.
When weighing these decisions , it is important to remember it is the net resource difference between you and your opponent. Also, you need to make sure you weigh all the factors. I tried to list them below. The top two are the most obvious.
- First-to-era resources (always remember this is a net swing).
- Exposing more resources on the income mat.
- Getting tech cards or tech card prerequisites that allow resource-generating upgrades you would no longer have.
- Avoiding a move that denies a prerequisite my opponent requires in order to make a resource-generating upgrade.
- Current tapestry card benefits for myself. For example, if I am currently on wartime economy and if I chose to take income that means I would miss out on one more good free bonus, then that is a -1 when evaluating the net resource swing.
- Current tapestry card benefits for my opponent. For example, if my opponent is on wartime economy and if they took income that means they would miss out on one more good free bonus, then that is a +1 when evaluating the net resource swing.
- Future tapestry card benefits for myself. For example, I have oil magnate but if I took income now I could only use oil magnate to advance onto a track space that costs 2 res, whereas if I took one more turn in this era I could then use oil magnate to advance onto a space that costs 3 res. This would mean taking income now would be a -1 for the future tapestry card factor when evaluating the net resource swing.
- Civilization benefits. For example, I am Leaders and if I take Era 2 to Era 3 income now, my position on tracks only allows me to move onto a track space that costs 2 res, whereas if I remained in Era 2 and took another move I would be able to use Leaders to move onto a track space that costs 3 res. In this situation, I would evaluate this lost benefit as -1 if I took income now.
- Similar to above, you have to factor in civilization benefits of your opponent. For example, if my opponent is Militants and if they took income on their next turn that would result in them missed out on exposing a res on their Militants board, then that would be a +1 for me when evaluating whether or not to take income.
- In landmark race scenarios, sometimes res gained or lost from landmarks has to be considered. For example, if my opponent and I are both racing up tech, if I take income and allow my opponent to get the rubber works I will need to consider the potential lost revenue from completing spaces in my city. This one is tricky to evaluate, but it needs to be considered.
When evaluating how many resource-generating moves you or your opponent have left in an era, you must be careful to consider all income that could yet be generated in that era. For example, consider the following scenario. I have enough res left at present to make two more resource-generating move in the current era. However, while making those two additional resource-generating moves, I will earn income buildings or landmarks such that I will gain two more resources in this era, and I can use those two additional resources to make a third resource-generating move in this era. In this scenario, taking income now would be a -3 for me, as I am missing out on three resource-generating moves (two moves from res I have right now, and one additional move from res I could still yet generate in this era). The same principle above applies when evaluating how many resource-generating moves your opponent has remaining in the era.
The method I have described so far is not an absolute rule. There are many other factors that I always consider. Here are the ones I can think of:
- My tapestry cards are terrible, the net resource swing is +1 for me if I took income now, but my next play in this era would give me a tapestry card. In this scenario, I would probably defer taking income to try for a tapestry card.
- The importance of the ability to finish tracks or deny the opponent the chance to finish tracks. Sometimes this will lead to a decision to take income even if the net resource calculation would not lead to this decision.
- When deciding when to go from Era 3 to Era 4, points start to matter in addition to income. For example, if the net resource calculation tells me it is +1 for me if I take income now, but if I make one more move in this era to get the rubber works and that allows me to score six rows/columns in my city two times for 12 points plus score the two more tech cards two times for six points, then I would consider making that move instead of taking income.
- Required track positioning for powerful tapestry cards. For example, if I want to play dark ages to go up M, I might delay income to get to M6 even if the net resource calculation would dictate otherwise.
- Potential for getting large benefits before next income. The most obvious case for this factor is getting a new civ before the next income turn. Getting a new civ before an income turn would often outweigh proceeding with an income turn for a better net resource swing on the income turn.
- Remaining abilities on “this era” tapestry cards that may not factor directly into the net resource swing but still need to be considered. For example, I am currently on empiricism and have yet to play S5.
- Landmark races on tracks. Be careful on this point – winning a landmark but then allowing your opponent to take first-to-era income with a big net resource swing for them (something like +5 for them) is probably a very bad scenario for you.
At the most basic level, when deciding whether or not to take an income turn I am asking myself this question: “If I do not take income and my opponent does take income on their next turn, is the net resource gain difference between me and my opponent better or worse?”. I recognize that this principle is hard to explain and understand in words, so perhaps an example will illustrate the principle more clearly.
Example Situation:
- Opponent and I are both in Era 2. Going first from Era 2 to Era 3 is a net resource swing of 4 resources (because one player gets 2 res, and the other player loses out on getting 2 res).
- It is my turn.
- I have enough res left to make two more resource-generating moves in Era 2. This means moves that expose a resource on my income mat, unlock a tech card upgrade or gain a tech card that gives me a resource-generating upgrade I would otherwise not have, etc.
- My opponent has enough res left to make one more resource-generating move in Era 2.
How do I evaluate whether taking income now or deferring and assuming my opponent will take income is the best option? I consider each factor, and if it results in more res for me or less res for my opponent, then I assign that factor a “+” value. Similarly, if a factor results in a loss of res for me or a gain of res for my opponent, then I assign that factor a “-“ value.
Here is how that works in the above scenario, assuming I decide to take an income turn. I gain two res for first to era (+2), deny my opponent the two res for first to era (+2), lose out on two income-generating moves I could have otherwise taken in Era 2 (-2), and allow my opponent to take that one more income-generating move they have left in Era 2 (-1). The sum of all these factors is 2+2-2-1 = +1 for me. This means that the net resource-generating difference between me and my opponent is +1 for me if I take income, and therefore I would strongly consider taking income.
When weighing these decisions , it is important to remember it is the net resource difference between you and your opponent. Also, you need to make sure you weigh all the factors. I tried to list them below. The top two are the most obvious.
- First-to-era resources (always remember this is a net swing).
- Exposing more resources on the income mat.
- Getting tech cards or tech card prerequisites that allow resource-generating upgrades you would no longer have.
- Avoiding a move that denies a prerequisite my opponent requires in order to make a resource-generating upgrade.
- Current tapestry card benefits for myself. For example, if I am currently on wartime economy and if I chose to take income that means I would miss out on one more good free bonus, then that is a -1 when evaluating the net resource swing.
- Current tapestry card benefits for my opponent. For example, if my opponent is on wartime economy and if they took income that means they would miss out on one more good free bonus, then that is a +1 when evaluating the net resource swing.
- Future tapestry card benefits for myself. For example, I have oil magnate but if I took income now I could only use oil magnate to advance onto a track space that costs 2 res, whereas if I took one more turn in this era I could then use oil magnate to advance onto a space that costs 3 res. This would mean taking income now would be a -1 for the future tapestry card factor when evaluating the net resource swing.
- Civilization benefits. For example, I am Leaders and if I take Era 2 to Era 3 income now, my position on tracks only allows me to move onto a track space that costs 2 res, whereas if I remained in Era 2 and took another move I would be able to use Leaders to move onto a track space that costs 3 res. In this situation, I would evaluate this lost benefit as -1 if I took income now.
- Similar to above, you have to factor in civilization benefits of your opponent. For example, if my opponent is Militants and if they took income on their next turn that would result in them missed out on exposing a res on their Militants board, then that would be a +1 for me when evaluating whether or not to take income.
- In landmark race scenarios, sometimes res gained or lost from landmarks has to be considered. For example, if my opponent and I are both racing up tech, if I take income and allow my opponent to get the rubber works I will need to consider the potential lost revenue from completing spaces in my city. This one is tricky to evaluate, but it needs to be considered.
When evaluating how many resource-generating moves you or your opponent have left in an era, you must be careful to consider all income that could yet be generated in that era. For example, consider the following scenario. I have enough res left at present to make two more resource-generating move in the current era. However, while making those two additional resource-generating moves, I will earn income buildings or landmarks such that I will gain two more resources in this era, and I can use those two additional resources to make a third resource-generating move in this era. In this scenario, taking income now would be a -3 for me, as I am missing out on three resource-generating moves (two moves from res I have right now, and one additional move from res I could still yet generate in this era). The same principle above applies when evaluating how many resource-generating moves your opponent has remaining in the era.
The method I have described so far is not an absolute rule. There are many other factors that I always consider. Here are the ones I can think of:
- My tapestry cards are terrible, the net resource swing is +1 for me if I took income now, but my next play in this era would give me a tapestry card. In this scenario, I would probably defer taking income to try for a tapestry card.
- The importance of the ability to finish tracks or deny the opponent the chance to finish tracks. Sometimes this will lead to a decision to take income even if the net resource calculation would not lead to this decision.
- When deciding when to go from Era 3 to Era 4, points start to matter in addition to income. For example, if the net resource calculation tells me it is +1 for me if I take income now, but if I make one more move in this era to get the rubber works and that allows me to score six rows/columns in my city two times for 12 points plus score the two more tech cards two times for six points, then I would consider making that move instead of taking income.
- Required track positioning for powerful tapestry cards. For example, if I want to play dark ages to go up M, I might delay income to get to M6 even if the net resource calculation would dictate otherwise.
- Potential for getting large benefits before next income. The most obvious case for this factor is getting a new civ before the next income turn. Getting a new civ before an income turn would often outweigh proceeding with an income turn for a better net resource swing on the income turn.
- Remaining abilities on “this era” tapestry cards that may not factor directly into the net resource swing but still need to be considered. For example, I am currently on empiricism and have yet to play S5.
- Landmark races on tracks. Be careful on this point – winning a landmark but then allowing your opponent to take first-to-era income with a big net resource swing for them (something like +5 for them) is probably a very bad scenario for you.
Keep em coming!